2017 QCCQ 3065, 2017 QCCQ 3065

Syndicat de copropriété Île Bellevue phase I c. Lévesque 2017 QCCQ 3065 JG2338 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF BEAUHARNOIS LOCALITY OF VAUDREUIL-DORION Civil Division No: 760-32-017535-164 DATE: February 21, 2017 ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HONOURABLE CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C. ______________________________________________________________________ SYNDICAT DE COPROPRIÉTÉ ÎLE BELLEVUE PHASE I Plaintiff v.

NICOLE LÉVESQUE Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This is a claim of $ 1583.86 from the Syndicat de copropriété Île Bellevue Phase I (Syndicate) against one of its co-owners, Mrs. Nicole Lévesque, further to damage caused on the ceiling of condo 101, by water coming from Mrs.

Lévesque’s condo. [ 2 ] The claim is established as follows: • Cost for painting and repairing the walls $ 1201.49 • Repairs done by Plomberie Bourbonnais $ 279.39 • Maintenance $ 80.00 • Registered letters $ 22.98 [ 3 ] The Syndicate’s Demand relies on a plumber’s report, written on November 7, 2014, when the damage occurred, and reads as follows: “Water leaking from bathroom ceiling number 101. Water coming from number 201. I entered number 201 with owner of 101, and found water on bathroom floor. Lady in 201 said she had just taken a bath.

I suspect that bath overflowed.” [ 4 ] The legal grounds for the Syndicate could be the following: 1. The personal liability of Mrs. Lévesque, with the obligation to prove a fault, according to

Section 1457 of the Quebec Civil Code ; 2. Her liability as a person having custody of a thing that caused damage, according to

Section 1465 of the Quebec Civil Code; 3. As the co-owner of a private part that has caused damage, according to Section 95 (7) of the Declaration of Co-ownership. [ 5 ] The Syndicate alleges Mrs. Lévesque’s personal liability, due to the fact that she has let her bath overflow. [ 6 ] Mrs. Lévesque offered a clear testimony as to what happened on November 7, 2014, on which day she had indeed taken a bath after coming back from work. According to her, there was only a small quantity of water on the floor, as when anyone just normally goes out of the tub. Her neighbour testified that she was called by Mrs. Lévesque right after the visit of the plumber to notice the

situation. [ 7 ] The plumber did not testify. The Syndicate has the burden of proving to the Court that Mrs. Lévesque indeed committed a fault, and a mere suspicion expressed by the plumber that the bath may have overflown is far from being sufficient to conclude that this is what really happened. [ 8 ] The action of the Syndicate must fail. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: DISMISSES the Demand; THE WHOLE with legal costs in the amount of 100 $, representing the fees paid by Mrs. Lévesque to file her contestation. __________________________________ CÉLINE GERVAIS, J.Q.C.